TheCowman

@Joygirl said:

She's Jokerette only in the sense that she fell into chemicals that made her hair and skin funny, and she went crazy. She's still Harley, and after 20 or so minutes people will get over that just like they all got over her new outfit.

Actually, I'm STILL not over the new outfit. I'm being petty, I know, but all I see when I look at the new Harley is '90s comics.

"Clown hats aren't cool. Let's give her colored hair instead, cause that's more badass."

"Now she has knives and stuff, cause mallets and joke weapons are for sissies."

"And then let's put her in a skimpy corset cause.... cause BOOBS!!!"

I agree that she's more in line with the "evil clown" archetype now, but that's part of why I'm disappointed. "Evil clowns" aren't interesting. They've been done before and better. Harley was always different than that type of character. I liked that out of costume she looked normal and adorable. It made it all the more intriguing whenever they'd peek under the hood and remind you that, yeah, this chick's pretty friggin' nuts.

The new Harley just seems too much like every other "scary clown" character out there. And that's one of the saddest things I can think of for such a unique and interesting character.

@minigunman123 said:

In all seriousness though, for a comic book that sounds ridiculous, Thor's abilities here sound more like SSJ3 Goku or something.. Absolute madness.

Only as ridiculous as everything Superman's ever done. Heck, if we included Superman powers from the Silver Age, it would sound like the craziest acid trip ever.

That's the problem with trying to determine what comic book character would win in a fight. They've all been written so differently over time that it's pretty much impossible. If Superman or Thor were to actually use all the abilities they've had over the years, they'd never lose ANY fight. And a battle between them would likely go on forever with no real winner.

Then again, maybe that's a way Thor can win. Is he really immortal? Could he just wait for Supes to die of old age? :D

@ElGUitarist said:

@Durakken said:

@TheCowman : again, it's about working within the universe that is established. In that universe, a guy in yellow spandex can be accepted as the ultimate hunter. That does not mean anything else ridiculous is fair game. An ultimate hunter having a sidekick still does not work in that universe, apparently.

Why?

If it's just preference, as you say, then what makes sidekicks not "fit"?

After all, I prefer Wolverine having Jubilee hanging around. And, judging by this thread, many people prefer to have Robin 'kicking for Batman. So if so many people like it and it's worked for so long, what is it that is inherently wrong with Batman having a Robin?

If you just prefer him solo, then fair enough. Everyone has their own favorite version of a character. But saying he doesn't "fit" with Batman's character at all implies you think there's something more fundamentally wrong with the partnership. I find your label of sidekicks as "campy" to be interesting. ARE sidekicks inherently campy?

I'd actually agree that they are, but then I think all superheroes are slightly inherently campy, so for me Robin still fits just fine.

Also, the allies/sidekicks thing just seems to be nitpicking over semantics. Batman and Robin were always having solo adventures, even when they were doing the hero/sidekick thing full-time. Insisting on calling him an ally rather than a sidekick just strikes me as insisting on calling them "graphic novels" instead of "comic books".

I'd have to go with Mystique. I like his relationship with Storm as well, but I still prefer Mystique in the end.

I never liked him with Jean.

Also don't wanna see him with Squirrel Girl; she's mineeeeeuuuummmmmm-I mean..... she's not... his...type? A-heh-heh......

Cassandra Cain.

With Stephanie Brown as a close second.

Batman having a sidekick doesn't "fit"?

Hmmm.... reminds me of the time some comic writer (can't remember the name) was taking over on the Wolverine book. When asked if Jubilee would be making an appearance, he said no because Wolverine as the "ultimate hunter" (or predator or something) wouldn't be running around with someone in a yellow raincoat. Forgetting, I guess, that Wolverine himself wears yellow spandex.

Batman not having a Robin strikes me as the same essential misunderstanding of a character as the above statement does. Why should Batman have a Robin?

The same reason he should be fighting Poison Ivy, Clayface, Mr. Freeze, Killer Croc, and Penguin.

Because THAT'S Batman.

@Jack Donaghy said:

There's a lot of hate for Nolanites yet none for the equally annoying and obnoxious Whedonites, I wonder why.

Eh, I think yer imagining more persecution than there actually is. Most of the people I know who criticize Nolan mainly do so because those who love him are so quick to brush off any criticism as being "fanboy whining". I have my problems with Nolan's Batman movies. I think JonSmith put it best by saying that Nolan made great movies starring Batman, but maybe not great Batman movies. Nothing really surprising there; whenever you go with a different interpretation of the source material you're going to lose a little bit of the magic that material had.

Of course, I have major issues with Whedon too. I didn't really like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Weird, right? His run on Astonishing X-Men left me flat too. But he knocked the Avengers movie outta the park, if for no other reason than it knocked the "comic books don't translate to movies" argument down a few more pegs. If they can make those huge, ridiculous horns on Loki's helmet work, then Bane's luchador mask is small potatoes.